|
Post by realisedurgency on Nov 11, 2019 18:56:59 GMT 7
A small update. Got my Thai tax number and opened and funded an IBKR account recently. I did almost go the property route narrowly losing out on a property via an online auction. The whole process highlighted the hassle of doing so from abroad. Organising a solicitor to look over legal documents and getting a property inspection was a pain.
So now I just need to decide on a portfolio. I do like the simplicity of Fletch's suggestion:
I'm going to do a bit of reading and research over a couple of weeks. Basically wondering can I find euro-denominated funds that give me a similar geographic split and performance to the suggested BG 3. I wouldn't mind more EU exposure either:
|
|
|
Post by realisedurgency on Nov 19, 2019 19:34:16 GMT 7
|
|
AyG
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 5,871
Likes: 4,555
|
Post by AyG on Nov 19, 2019 20:59:05 GMT 7
One thing that sticks out is some of Rick Ferri's research on portfolios of actively managed funds versus portfolios of index funds. I wouldn't pay too much attention to what he writes. It's fundamentally flawed. In the whitepaper he starts with a portfolio that's 40% US equities, 40% US bonds, 20% international equities. It's well known that in highly efficient markets active managers struggle to outperform, so only for 20% of the notional portfolio is there a reasonable chance for active out performance. The 80% obscures the reality of what active management is capable of. Furthermore, by randomly selecting funds he's failing to account for the fact that some active funds manage to outperform consistently over long periods of time - there really is such a thing as manager skill. Of course, many, many managers are closet index trackers, so in the random selection these will drag down the overall performance.
|
|
|
Post by realisedurgency on Feb 4, 2020 11:41:38 GMT 7
Interested to hear how others add to their portfolios. I want to keep it simple and invest in the same 3 trusts I have now. I invested roughly a third each to SAINTS, SMT and MNKS to begin with. Since then SMT has done well, SAINTS and MNKS less so, albeit a short and irrelevant time period. Assuming things stay the same though, I'm not sure how I want to add to the portfolio.
Let's say I have 6k more I want to invest should I allocate a third to each? Or should I add so the total value of each holding after making the addition is equal? Doing the latter seems a little wrong since I would be allocating more to the underperforming holding. Thoughts?
|
|
AyG
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 5,871
Likes: 4,555
|
Post by AyG on Feb 4, 2020 14:00:43 GMT 7
Just casting an eye over my portfolio, I'd suggest you consider diversifying a bit and look at JEO, HNE, MWY.
Not sure why the negativity about MNKS. It's returned 21.9% over the last year.
|
|
|
Post by realisedurgency on Feb 4, 2020 22:33:23 GMT 7
Didn't mean for my post to come across that as negative on MNKS or SAIN, I'm not. Just in the short time I've had them, they haven't done as well as SMT which has done very well. I will look into your suggestions though. Some reading for my weekend. I have been very impressed with everything I've read from Baillie Gifford so it will be interesting to see others for comparison.
|
|
|
Post by rgs2001uk on Feb 5, 2020 20:24:03 GMT 7
^^^^ time period? No cause for concern, normal behaviour, not all stocks will perform at the same rate at the same time, I hold both Monks and Scot Mort, both are quality produts from a long established firm. To quickly answer your question, looks at the holdings, eg country breakdown, and holdings held. I understand you checking, its normal behaviour, as one who has held both of the above for 20+ years, check them out again in say, 3 years time. As to where to put your money, thats a desicion only you can make, what are you comfortable with? Are you open to new suggestions as mentioned above, or will you stick with what you have until such times as your knowledge and experience improves, nothing wrong with sticking with what you know, in fact I recommend it.
|
|
|
Post by rgs2001uk on Feb 6, 2020 12:07:44 GMT 7
Didn't mean for my post to come across that as negative on MNKS or SAIN, I'm not. Just in the short time I've had them, they haven't done as well as SMT which has done very well. I will look into your suggestions though. Some reading for my weekend. I have been very impressed with everything I've read from Baillie Gifford so it will be interesting to see others for comparison. I suspect the main reason for Scottish mort doing so well is the tesla share price, you may wish to read up on that, bubble territory?
|
|
AyG
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 5,871
Likes: 4,555
|
Post by AyG on Feb 6, 2020 12:28:54 GMT 7
I suspect the main reason for Scottish mort doing so well is the tesla share price, you may wish to read up on that, bubble territory? There are plenty of other companies in the top ten holdings that have put me off SMT, particularly Netflix, Alibaba and Tencent.
|
|
|
Post by realisedurgency on Feb 6, 2020 21:48:42 GMT 7
Hi rgs, I'm happy to stick with what I know. I have a few thousand to add and was just wondering whether to choose to split the addition equally between the 3 Baillie Gifford funds or whether to put more in the ones that haven't done as well so that the total amount I have invested in each fund is equal. It's only been a couple of months. That said, I'm open to investing in other trusts. Here's what I like about the Baillie Gifford trusts: - low turnover - active investment philosophy (actual investing to use their branding) - managers with a good academic background - managers with lots of skin in the game - low fees - ties to academia - long track record If the trusts suggested have all the above I'm interested. JEO and HNE have slightly higher fees than SAIN, MWY has higher fees than SMT but almost the same as MNKS. A quick search and I find that the managers at JEO and MWY have plenty of skin in the game. I must read up on whatever I can on each to get a better feel for what they are about. The fund managers with millions of pounds of 'skin in the game': www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/funds/fund-managers-millions-pounds-skin-game/'Let's talk about actual investing' Stuart Dunbar: www.bailliegifford.com/en/uk/about-us/literature-library/actual-investing/lets-talk-about-actual-investingIn the 'Let's talk about actual investing' booklet, Cremers and Petajisto 2009 and Cremers and Pareek 2014 research is summarised as: - All ‘active’ managers: Average value added = -0.4% - 20% most active vs benchmark: Average value added = +1.1% p.a. - 20% of most active with highest turnover: Average value added = -1.9% p.a. - 20% of most active with lowest turnover: Average value added = +2.3% p.a.
|
|
|
Post by rgs2001uk on Feb 7, 2020 21:04:11 GMT 7
^^^ sorry mate, have other things on my plate at the moment, will get back to you later.
|
|
|
Post by rgs2001uk on Feb 8, 2020 1:11:55 GMT 7
|
|
AyG
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 5,871
Likes: 4,555
|
Post by AyG on Feb 8, 2020 10:42:27 GMT 7
Just a couple of points: (a) Different fund managers have different styles. Different styles will perform better or worse under different circumstances. It's therefore a good idea to diversify across fund managers. (b) I believe Cremers & Pareek (2014) should be (2016). The research is based solely upon US mutual funds investing in the US. It is not applicable to non-US markets - and particularly to less efficient such markets. The paper's at www.sci-hub.tw/10.1016/j.jfineco.2016.08.003
|
|
|
Post by rgs2001uk on Feb 10, 2020 22:15:52 GMT 7
Just a couple of points: (a) Different fund managers have different styles. Different styles will perform better or worse under different circumstances. It's therefore a good idea to diversify across fund managers. (b) I believe Cremers & Pareek (2014) should be (2016). The research is based solely upon US mutual funds investing in the US. It is not applicable to non-US markets - and particularly to less efficient such markets. The paper's at www.sci-hub.tw/10.1016/j.jfineco.2016.08.003Bear in mind, a lot of these stocks are doing well because of their american exposure, putting politics aside, its something that cannot last, go back lets say 20 years ago and see how well the american market was doing.
|
|
AyG
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 5,871
Likes: 4,555
|
Post by AyG on Feb 12, 2020 17:28:23 GMT 7
Bear in mind, a lot of these stocks are doing well because of their american exposure, putting politics aside, its something that cannot last (1) I used to think there was some point in looking at very long term strategies and had beliefs such as "emerging markets will outperform developed markets", "water is going to be in short supply so related shares will benefit", "agriculture will do well because of increasing populations". The reality is that, for me, these are too long term, and I'm no longer going to wait 20 or 30 years on the off-chance that a strategy will come good. (2) I don't think that politics can be ignored. US stocks have done well under Trump. Should he win this year's election (which in my sad opinion is increasingly likely) US stocks should continue to do well under his "leadership". Under the Democrats things are unlikely to be so rosy (which is ironic because the US has done so well because of the Obama-era policies - not because of Trump). After the election Trump is likely (well, as likely as anything can be under his inconsistent and capricious hand) to stoke up war with China (and other countries) again, harming China and linked economies and their associated share prices. Given the failed impeachment process he now considers himself above the law and believes he can act as a self-serving, reckless and ruthless tinpot dictator with impunity. (And he's probably right.) More generally, the correlation between US and global stock markets has increased, meaning that what happens in the US has a greater impact upon other markets than what it used to. So, at the moment things probably remain good for US markets for a few years yet.
|
|